<quoted text>5 years ago climate prophets claimed:"Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt..."Today, the same climate experts will concede that the title of this thread is NOT true.These climate scientists are now saying their historic data indicates global warming has slowed down over the better part of 2 decades!A rational person would not be in denial about the current state of 'climate reality'.

A new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters says that in the past 15 years we've undergone "the most sustained warming trend."

The researchers attribute this "missing heat" phenomena to the fact that about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been cooking.

The myth that global warming has slowedwhich is frequently cited by climate deniers and perpetuated by "fundamentally flawed" studies that do not account for the warming of deep ocean watershas had the dangerous effect of "lull[ing] many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security," writes Skeptical Science, "with many people wrongly believing global warming has paused when in reality it has accelerated."

<quoted text>A new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters says that in the past 15 years we've undergone "the most sustained warming trend."The researchers attribute this "missing heat" phenomena to the fact that about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been cooking.The myth that global warming has slowedwhich is frequently cited by climate deniers and perpetuated by "fundamentally flawed" studies that do not account for the warming of deep ocean waters...https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03...

Glad we now realize that the past climate studies were "fundamentally flawed"!The old models did not account for the ~90% of the heat going into the oceans and that their programmed heat budget only looked at the <10% that was going into the air.

<quoted text>A new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters says that in the past 15 years we've undergone "the most sustained warming trend."The researchers attribute this "missing heat" phenomena to the fact that about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been cooking.The myth that global warming has slowedwhich is frequently cited by climate deniers and perpetuated by "fundamentally flawed" studies that do not account for the warming of deep ocean watershas had the dangerous effect of "lull[ing] many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security," writes Skeptical Science, "with many people wrongly believing global warming has paused when in reality it has accelerated."https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03...

One of the researchers (Trenberth) states the uptake of heat in the deep oceans will result in a rise in sea level beyond that which occurs from ice melt. This logically means that melt rate estimates are likely in error due to the failure of incorporating thermal expansion resulting from the assumed deep ocean heating.

Yes, there is no denying that past models, studies, and projections are "fundamentally flawed".

<quoted text>Glad we now realize that the past climate studies were "fundamentally flawed"!The old models did not account for the ~90% of the heat going into the oyceans and that their programmed heat budget only looked at the <10% that was going into the air.

<quoted text>Failed reading skills: the quote does not refer to "the old models".

Yes, failed indeed:"[4] A key question is how recent and robust is the role of deep ocean in the heat uptake, because the advent of the Argo ocean observing system is known to have a profound impact in ocean state estimations [Balmaseda et al., 2007]. Another question is how much disruption there is of the warming trends by natural variability and from the volcanic eruptions, which contributed to the TOA imbalance but have not been factored into most analyses of OHC variations. Several decadal hiatus periods of the upper ocean warming associated with natural decadal and interannual variability, such as La Niña events, have been found in a model [Meehl et al., 2011]. Recently, the 20012010 interannual variations of TOA radiation and OHC have been associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)[Loeb et al., 2012]."Your welcome.

<quoted text>This sentence doesn't make any sense.Not only are your reading skills fatally flawed, so are your skills in logic.In other words you are a moron with nothing of any value to say on this complex subject.

Really??: "In other words you are a moron with nothing of any value to say on this complex subject." That's your summation of contribution to this topic of thermal expansion and it's relationship to ice melt estimates?

Not sure of your "moron" point... I was speaking of rates of "sea level" rise.Trenberth suggests "missing" heat goes into the ocean causing sea levels to rise due to thermal expansion.So how much of the past 17 years of sea level rise is from thermal expansion and how much is due to ice melt and glacial calving?

Logically; old estimates of ice melt (and subsequent sea level rise) could not be correct if the "missing" heat was not a factor in their calculations.

<quoted text>Really??: "In other words you are a moron with nothing of any value to say on this complex subject." That's your summation of contribution to this topic of thermal expansion and it's relationship to ice melt estimates?

<quoted text>Yes, failed indeed:"[4] A key question is how recent and robust is the role of deep ocean in the heat uptake, because the advent of the Argo ocean observing system is known to have a profound impact in ocean state estimations [Balmaseda et al., 2007]. Another question is how much disruption there is of the warming trends by natural variability and from the volcanic eruptions, which contributed to the TOA imbalance but have not been factored into most analyses of OHC variations. Several decadal hiatus periods of the upper ocean warming associated with natural decadal and interannual variability, such as La Niña events, have been found in a model [Meehl et al., 2011]. Recently, the 20012010 interannual variations of TOA radiation and OHC have been associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)[Loeb et al., 2012]."Your welcome.

<quoted text>Really??: "In other words you are a moron with nothing of any value to say on this complex subject." That's your summation of contribution to this topic of thermal expansion and it's relationship to ice melt estimates?Not sure of your "moron" point... I was speaking of rates of "sea level" rise.Trenberth suggests "missing" heat goes into the ocean causing sea levels to rise due to thermal expansion.So how much of the past 17 years of sea level rise is from thermal expansion and how much is due to ice melt and glacial calving?Logically; old estimates of ice melt (and subsequent sea level rise) could not be correct if the "missing" heat was not a factor in their calculations.Your thoughts?

Speaking of man-made climate change.. "The federal government's research agencies have been largely shuttered, with scientists sent home and projects shelved," it read. "There are five Nobel Prize-winning researchers currently working for the federal government, all of whom are world-renowned scientists and leaders in their field. Four of them are currently furloughed and unable to conduct their federal research on behalf of the American public due to the government shutdown."

Among the agencies mentioned, the National Science Foundation has had it the worst. Ninety-eight percent of its employees have been furloughed, and the organization has not issued any new scientific research grants. The NSF funds non-medical science and engineering research and education programs across the country.

The National Institutes of Health, the nation's top medical research facility, has lost almost three-quarters of its staff, forcing it to turn away most new patients from its studies. Funding for the NIH became a focal point of debate early in the shutdown when reports emerged that children with cancer were being denied entry into potentially life-saving studies.

The majority of Americans may feel the greatest impact, however, from the cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. Two-thirds of its personnel have been sent home, and as flu season begins, influenza monitoring has been cut back, according to the White House.

Still, the CDC will continue its most important role in monitoring any imminent threats to the public's health, and most flu vaccines are produced by private companies.[cnn]

<quoted text>One of the researchers (Trenberth) states the uptake of heat in the deep oceans will result in a rise in sea level beyond that which occurs from ice melt. This logically means that melt rate estimates are likely in error due to the failure of incorporating thermal expansion resulting from the assumed deep ocean heating.

Let's see if we can unpick some your misunderstandings here.

Ice melt is not estimated from sea level rise- it is measured by satellites.

Sea level also increases as the oceans warm- at any depth. This is already known.

The thermal expansion in the deep ocean was not incorporated in previous sea level budgets, but those budgets didn't close.

Sea level was more than expansion due to warming plus ice melt volume.

If sea level rise had equalled expansion due to warming plus ice melt volume, and the figure for expansion due to warming had increased, then you would have to assume either the ice melt data were in error, or doubt the deep ocean warming.

But because the budget didn't close, thermal expansion due to deep ocean warming actually explains the observed sea level rise better, and gives more confidence to observations of ice melt.

Recent sea level rise has so far been difficult to fully explain: satellites measure global sea level rise since 1993 to be about 3.1 mm/year. The warming and expanding 'upper ocean', or the top 700 metres measured by ships and buoys can explain 1.2 mm/year whilst the water added by melting snow and ice can be estimated from satellite gravity measurements for ice sheets and other methods for smaller glaciers, and is about 0.85 mm/year.

Simple addition of the numbers above (1.2 + 0.85 mm/year = 2.05 mm/year) shows that the result from the upper ocean thermal expansion and addition of water mass is still about 1 mm/year short of the observed 3.1 mm/year sea level rise. However, some previous studies have had these numbers quite close to each other when the uncertainties in the estimates have been considered.

....

The model simulations give a sea level rise of 1.1 mm/year from the thermal expansion of the deep ocean. When that is added to the 2.05 mm/year calculated above, the result (3.15 mm/year) is remarkably close to the observed rise of 3.1 mm/year (which more accurately is 3.11 mm/year).

So how much of the past 17 years of sea level rise is from thermal expansion and how much is due to ice melt and glacial calving?Logically; old estimates of ice melt (and subsequent sea level rise) could not be correct if the "missing" heat was not a factor in their calculations.Your thoughts?

I think you should do some basic reading on the subject rather than advertising and gloating in your ignorance and misunderstanding.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.